Fri Feb 8th, 2008 at 06:27:27 AM EST
Right, that just about does it. The Wall Street Journal Europe breaks even the lowest standards of journalism in its apology of Blair. Let's go through it, and bring your noseclip.
Tony Blair is being tipped as a candidate for the new post of EU Council President, and suddenly it's 2003 all over again.
Mr. Blair's sin is his alliance with the U.S. in the Iraq war. His detractors want Nicolas Sarkozy, Angela Merkel and the EU's other national leaders, who choose the Council President, to pass over the most successful politician of his generation
How do they measure that? In terms of number of front pages in the Sun? It seems that the things he had allegedly at heart failed to go forward much (in particular, making the UK more integrated into the EU, or reducing poverty, or solving the problems with the pension system). Pushing David Kelly to suicide and then blaming the BBC (successfully getting their heads too) worked better, though.
and one of the most eloquent advocates of the fight against Islamic terrorism
Uh? I am yet to see any European leader backing Islamic terrorism. In fact, seeing how unanimously it is condemned by the populations, one may wonder whether an eloquent advocate of a fight against it really is needed, unless there could be a risk that the issue could be seen as not the only one to care about, and fail to completely offset trivial things like inequality or a dangerously shaky economy.
However, not all leaders are advocate of calling this fight, and treating it like, a war. In fact, those "eloquente advocates" may not be the most effective -it seems that countries occupying Iraq are far more likely to find terrorism happen to them. I wonder why.
for the leader of tiny Luxembourg
I didn't realise that we were choosing a country. Can you not achieve any sort of status if you come from a small country? Hell, Blair worships the pope yet Vatican is way smaller than Luxembourg isn't it?
It's a curious time to renew the Iraq debate, just as the U.S. surge has put al Qaeda on the defensive and allowed for slow but sure political progress in Baghdad. Events on the ground make the antiwar crowd's narrative of a "disastrous" invasion less plausible almost daily.
REALLY? I keep reading about suicide bombers. How many were there in 2002? Or Iraqi civilian casualties from the war -apparently now topping a million. Or a conspicuous absence of WMD (remember them?). As for the oh so stable politics that such invasions are likely to bring, you do know about the Afghan journalist that is condemned to death for downloading and sharing an article criticising the obligation for women to be veiled?
So it's compensating by repeating its claims of catastrophe until the public believes they're true. Mr. Blair's potential candidacy -- he hasn't yet declared whether he will stand -- provides an excuse to keep trying.
Sure. Blair's potential candidacy must be the reason that the Iraq quagmire is seen increasingly negatively in the US -they are known to be so fixated on all things EU! They can't take their eyes off the Blair potential candidacy for a post that does not yet exist!
Leading the people's revolt against Mr. Blair is the European Tribune. The Web site this week launched a petition in 13 of the EU's 23 official languages, with the aim of collecting one million anti-Blair signatures. (By yesterday afternoon they were rocketing toward 5,000, with much support from "Anonymous.")
Well, it hasn't exactly been online for long has it? And as for the Anonymous thing, how do you spell disingenuous? Oh, that's it, disingenuous. People may choose not to publish their names, but they are checked as seperate individuals all the same.
I can't believe such an article can even be written. What a world.